State Lags in Growth of Income : * Economy: During the 1991 third quarter, California joined 13 other states, most along the East Coast, in trailing the nation’s 2.8% average gain in personal income.

Personal income grew at a slower pace in California than it did nationwide during the depths of the recession last year and actually declined when adjusted for inflation, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

California joined 13 other states, most along the East Coast, in trailing the nation’s average growth in personal income of 2.8% for the three months ended September, 1991, compared to the same quarter in 1990.

Californians’ personal income increased 1.9% during the same period. However, prices rose 3.9% during the 12 months so that, after adjusting for inflation, income in California and the nation fell.

“As low as inflation is, it’s kind of ironic that personal income was also low,” said Rudolph E. DePass, an analyst for the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, which compiled the report.

“There’s just not a whole lot of gloating to do” about incomes, he said. “Growth is somewhat subdued.”

Utah posted the best income growth (up 6.21%) during the period. Only Rhode Island recorded a decline (down 0.35%), while in New Hampshire, personal income was unchanged.

Other states lagging the national average were Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Vermont and Virginia.

Some California officials believe that the picture in the state is even bleaker than portrayed by U.S. figures. Pauline P. Sweezey, chief economist of the California Department of Finance, said the Commerce Department’s statistics for California are probably too optimistic.

Personal income in California grew only 1% from September, 1990, to September, 1991, according to state figures, which incorporate more recent data than those released by the Commerce Department, Sweezey said. Inflation in California during that period was 3.7%, she said.

Still, the Commerce Department’s report is “consistent with other indicators that we see, so we’re not surprised,” she said.

Construction and manufacturing payrolls declined sharply in California and the other states with the slowest income growth, DePass said. Both California and the East Coast states were hit hard by cuts in defense spending and a slowdown in high-technology industries.

At the same time, interest rates and housing prices were high, consumer confidence was low and credit was difficult to come by, he said.

“Those kinds of things affected us all, but it just happens that states like California entered this phase later” and are still suffering, DePass said. “In some ways, it’s a blessing that the state of California entered the recession late. They haven’t had to endure it as long” as some states in New England, he said. California “may not go through the wringer that some of the others did.”

For example, construction payroll in California began its decline in the fourth quarter of 1990. In contrast, construction payroll in New England began to decline in the first quarter of 1989, he said.

What’s more, during the expansion period between the fourth quarter of 1982 and the third quarter of 1990, California recorded a personal income growth that was 1% above the national average, DePass said.

Income by Region Here is a regional listing of percentage changes in personal income from the third quarter of 1990 to the third quarter of 1991, followed by a ranking for each region during the period.

Region Chg Rank New England +0.7 8 Mid-Atlantic +2.0 7 Great Lakes +2.9 5 Plains +3.5 3 Southeast +3.3 4 Southwest +4.8 2 Rocky Mountain +4.9 1 Far West +2.4 6